Initially, finding the skyshards on console was slow, so having a tablet or laptop beside you helps - there're several sites that provide good maps.

After 20+ characters on multiple accounts - who needs a map?

disintegr8 wrote: »

Initially, finding the skyshards on console was slow, so having a tablet or laptop beside you helps - there're several sites that provide good maps.

After 20+ characters on multiple accounts - who needs a map?

Yeah, this is basically what I did to find skyshards on multiple characters.

Unfortunately, it doesn't alter the point about bad game design. You're still not finding skyshards with the in-game clues system. You're finding them with outside software, and then with your memory. This could be used as an argument that the outside software is good/OK, or as an argument that your memory is good/OK. It can't be used as an argument that the in-game clues system is good or OK. On the contrary, the fact that the majority of people don't use that system is a pretty clear indication that it isn't.

The fact that skyshards are 50 Crowns per skyshard is absolutely ridiculous. However, it does not surprise me in the slightest that ZOS would seize an opportunity to drain the player base for every possible cent. A much more realistic price would have been 15 Crowns per skyshard. With the 338 skyshards in the base game (not including the free Wailing Prison one) that would have meant that a player, who already collected the requisite skyshards, could purchase the 5500 Crowns pack and get the skyshards for an alt.

The ability to purchase skyshards should have also been tied to the Tamriel Skyshard Hunter achievement, rather than area achievement equals purchasable area skyshards. Then it would have genuinely been a short cut for players who've already done the entire grind. I don't know how many people get every skyshard on a toon, but at least then the ability to purchase them would have been a meaningful unlock which allows the shortcut only to people who really are simply skipping a mind-numbing grind.

The current set-up is greedy and disappointing.

BNOC wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

Wolfpaw wrote: »

ZOS/Beth the new EA in town?...funny thing for me is, the more ways they find to gouge their supportive players the tighter my wallet becomes.

My expectations for Character/account skyshard unlocks was to promote alt play, & in-turn player invests more into the game overtime with new class driven xpacs, alts, sub, etc...if alt play means no-lifer do the same content X amount of times or spend $100 to play catch-up, well pass, continue play my main & not waste money on xpacs like the necro.

Yes, you already know these pack costs will sit either side of a Crowns pack size as well right? Just like EA.

E.G. A SS pack could cost 1250 crowns because you can only buy 750 or 1500 crowns, forcing you into buying the 1500, or higher - It's a scummy tactic they all use these days.

Your expectations were the same as nearly every advocate's but we'll see.

So, they're 800 and you can buy 750 crowns. I'm not surprised one bit.

That's one of the dirtiest tactics all these companies are using atm.

Not even close.

What do you mean "not even close"?

Not even close.

Okay, there is a psychological effect about how people think about money. When you start adding in micro-transaction currencies, it gets legitimately hard for people to process that as real money, especially once they've spent it. So, yeah, there's issues here.

Selling something for more than the smallest pack is less of a problem than that. Especially since the dollar per crown value on the 750 pack is pretty bad. You'd be much better off subbing for a month of ESO+, which may be the point.

But, as for the, "dirtiest tactics?" Not even close. We have post-launch review embargos. We've got non-cosmetic loot boxes on $60 boxed releases. Loot boxes that feed into PvP systems. We've got actual P2W titles out there. Microtransactions where you're paying to rent the item in question. Pay to bypass timers. Interfaces that are deliberately obtuse to try to pressure you into spending money out of frustration. Intentionally making multiple editions with their bonuses as obtuse as possible in an effort to maintain a degree of confusion and hoping the buyer will overspend. We have Early Access being used as a shield against criticism, allowing less scrupulous publishers to push incomplete titles out the door, in some cases without ever even intending to complete it. We have **** like Star Citizen. I mean, really, we have **** like Star Citizen.

In the grand scheme of things, microtransaction pricing and it's relation to pack sizes is a pretty minor offense. Yes, it is somewhat manipulative. Because you're not handing over physical cash, you're already at a disadvantage for mentally processing that, yes, you are spending real money. But you're paying to convert that into fake money, that you then buy stuff with, and at that point it is much harder to sort through and go, "wait a second, I'm spending how much?" However, when examining the industry as a whole, this is a pretty minor issue.

So, no, this is not even close to the dirtiest tactics used by publishers. Not even sure it raises to the level of dirty.

Whilst you're not wrong that publishers/developers pull much worse stunts than this (I played Anthem), I never said it 'was' the dirtiest tactic, I said 'one of', which I stand by - Though, I have no doubt that from a business point of view it's a highly effective and knowingly manipulative strategy.

As you've stated, the fact that we have to buy pretend money instead of directly paying for the product is bad enough because of the psychology involved but the clever manipulation of item pricing on top of that is unnecessary nonetheless.

I assume it is as you said "minor offence" and "minor issue" as opposed to not, but if manipulation of any kind isn't at dirty level in your eyes then that's alright, it is however my opinion that anything involving player manipulation as pertains to net profits, is a dirty tactic.

At a fundamental level, all advertising is about psychological manipulation. I mean, the process is: create and communicate a need to the consumer then provide a product that can fulfill that need.

That's not just the entertainment industry by the way, that's all advertising.

The question that needs to be evaluated is if the practice we're looking at is predatory or deceptive.

In the case of, "recurring revenue streams," the question is if those costs are mandatory, and to a lesser extent reasonable and clearly presented.

To be clear, some of this is reasonable. MMOs used to sell on a box & sub model. In fact, ESO started with that model before moving to an optional subscription system. The current + model still fits the original ESO subscription plan (mostly), with any new content being available if you're a subscriber, with a 1 year wait on the chapters.

There is another part of this, boxes still cost about the same as they did 15 years ago. That's not true for much else. Cost of living has increased significantly from where it was back then, and games are more expensive to produce (and maintain) today than they were when the 360 and PS3 moved the box price to $60.

If you're going to make a game today, you're going to need to sell it for more than that to recoup your costs with realistic sales figures. It's part of why we've seen the explosion of expanded editions, DLC passes, and other things. It's easy to point at that and say, "them greedy publishers," but the truth is, in many cases, they're pushing to get post-purchase sales in order to actually make a profit. It's also why games like Anthem drop with a cash shop in at launch, because EA was trying to make enough money off of Anthem to justify continuing to develop it.

Now, here's the real question, are the post-purchase micro-transactions added value, or are they hidden fees?

I'll give the Crown Store team flak, but you do get what you paid for (with a few fumbles.) Stuff tends to be a bit overpriced (including in this case,) but these are optional quality of life or cosmetic features you can spend money for, but don't need to buy.

Hold this in contrast to games where the cash shop hides additional mandatory fees to continue playing. I've played MMOs in the past that straight up gated you from leveling past certain points unless you coughed up real cash, or ground for weeks. In those cases, the cash shop was predatory. It's not a choice of if you want to play the game, it's a choice of if you're willing to cough up the cash to continue playing the game you paid for.

Which comes back to that, "create a need," issue. If the need being created is, "I want to look cool in this specific way," that's far more forgivable than, "the game was designed to mandate additional purchases or otherwise locks you out or requires significantly more grinding."

Often this comes down to gameplay balance decisions. When developing Deus Ex: Mankind Divided the team at Eidos Montreal was not aware of the microtransaction system being added to the game. As a result, it was balanced around upgrades and resources that would be naturally available to a player as they progressed. (So, this one looked ugly, but it's not really that predatory.)

However, if a developer took that exact same situation (selling upgrade resources in their store) and then balanced the experience around the expectation that the player would be spending X amount in the store to "keep up" with the content, that would be predatory, and much more deceptive.

I can understand the position of, "they're trying to mess with me, that's wrong!" It is a valid, and understandable, response, but this situation is a lot more complicated than that.

Oh dang. I thought that if we got Tamriel skyshard Hunter we could buy them all for another character and it wouldn’t be this expensive!